Cardiac resynchronization therapy: mechanisms of action and scope for further improvement in cardiac function.

Aims: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may exert its beneficial haemodynamic effect by improving ventricular synchrony and improving atrioventricular (AV) timing. The aim of this study was to establish the relative importance of the mechanisms through which CRT improves cardiac function and explore the potential for additional improvements with improved ventricular resynchronization. Methods and Results: We performed simulations using the CircAdapt haemodynamic model and performed haemodynamic measurements while adjusting AV delay, at low and high heart rates, in 87 patients with CRT devices. We assessed QRS duration, presence of fusion, and haemodynamic response. The simulations suggest that intrinsic PR interval and the magnitude of reduction in ventricular activation determine the relative importance of the mechanisms of benefit. For example, if PR interval is 201 ms and LV activation time is reduced by 25 ms (typical for current CRT methods), then AV delay optimization is responsible for 69% of overall improvement. Reducing LV activation time by an additional 25 ms produced an additional 2.6 mmHg increase in blood pressure (30% of effect size observed with current CRT). In the clinical population, ventricular fusion significantly shortened QRS duration (Δ-27 ± 23 ms, P < 0.001) and improved systolic blood pressure (mean 2.5 mmHg increase). Ventricular fusion was present in 69% of patients, yet in 40% of patients with fusion, shortening AV delay (to a delay where fusion was not present) produced the optimal haemodynamic response. Conclusions: Improving LV preloading by shortening AV delay is an important mechanism through which cardiac function is improved with CRT. There is substantial scope for further improvement if methods for delivering more efficient ventricular resynchronization can be developed. Clinical Trial Registration: Our clinical data were obtained from a subpopulation of the British Randomised Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimisation (BRAVO), which is a registered clinical trial with unique identifier: NCT01258829, https://clinicaltrials.gov

Report from the Annual Conference of the British Society of Echocardiography, November 2016, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London.

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Atorvastatin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with increased cardiovascular event (CVE) risk. The impact of statins in RA is not established. We assessed whether atorvastatin is superior to placebo for the primary prevention of CVEs in RA patients. Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial was designed to detect a 32% CVE risk reduction based on an estimated 1.6% per annum event rate with 80% power at P 50 years or with a disease duration of >10 years who did not have clinical atherosclerosis, diabetes, or myopathy received atorvastatin 40 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or any arterial revascularization. Secondary and tertiary end points included plasma lipids and safety. Results: A total of 3,002 patients (mean age 61 years; 74% female) were followed up for a median of 2.51 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.90, 3.49 years) (7,827 patient‐years). The study was terminated early due to a lower than expected event rate (0.70% per annum). Of the 1,504 patients receiving atorvastatin, 24 (1.6%) experienced a primary end point, compared with 36 (2.4%) of the 1,498 receiving placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.39, 1.11]; P = 0.115 and adjusted HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32, 1.15]; P = 0.127). At trial end, patients receiving atorvastatin had a mean ± SD low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level 0.77 ± 0.04 mmoles/liter lower than those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). C‐reactive protein level was also significantly lower in the atorvastatin group than the placebo group (median 2.59 mg/liter [IQR 0.94, 6.08] versus 3.60 mg/liter [IQR 1.47, 7.49]; P < 0.0001). CVE risk reduction per mmole/liter reduction in LDL cholesterol was 42% (95% CI −14%, 70%). The rates of adverse events in the atorvastatin group (n = 298 [19.8%]) and placebo group (n = 292 [19.5%]) were similar. Conclusion: Atorvastatin 40 mg daily is safe and results in a significantly greater reduction of LDL cholesterol level than placebo in patients with RA. The 34% CVE risk reduction is consistent with the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration meta‐analysis of statin effects in other populations